US Cracks Down on Medical Marijuana

borderlinegenius

Active member
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
149
The Supreme Court in the US has ruled that federal drug laws over-ride state laws, and hence that people in states which permit medical use of marijuana are liable to prosecution.

The CNN story is here

Ten states allow medical marijuana use, and cannabis legalisation campaigners have worked to hold referenda in states on medical use and, indeed, the legalisation of cannabis. Such referenda are invariably a lot closer than the US government might like, and give the lie to the notion that the US public are supportive of the extremely harsh stance taken by the US on the issue of marijuana use.

Senators in the US are proposing even tougher anti-cannabis laws, with a proposal to make the 'crime' of not reporting a person you know to be taking cannabis punishable by a mandatory minimum two-year sentence. This has been criticised for attempting to co-opt the public to spy on their family and friends.

There are also proposals to make passing a joint to a person who has been in drug rehabilitation a 'crime' punishable by a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison.

The US continues to have the highest rate of cannabis usage in the Western world.
 


Seabird

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
78
BLG,

Isn't that horrible. This country never ceases to amaze me and people wonder what causes people to become activists. Thanks for posting I some how missed this one.
 

borderlinegenius

Active member
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
149
Horrible indeed, but hardly surprising. The 'war on drugs' is big business. It keeps a lot of DEA people in employment, it makes the prisons more profitable, and it allows the US government to traffic in drugs to fund their less palatable overseas activities, not to mention using the 'war on drugs' as an excuse to shore up criminally corrupt regimes such as the Colombian regime.

The US government has been involved in trafficking drugs to fund its covert activites on several occasions, most notably when they imported crack cocaine to pay for their dirty war in Nicaragua, or when they brought in boat-loads of Afghan hash to pay for the terrorist Mujahadeen campaign in Afghanistan.
 

flakie

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
46
Website
www.irishanimals.ie
There's really not much to say about that, is there?

My first response to the thread title was

"What? Because they've been so lenient about it up til now?!"

My parents who are the embodiment of conservativism, hysterical reactionary restriction of rights and right-wing fundamentalist crazies believe that medical marijuana should be allowed.

I mean, it's a medication!

I personally believe I should be able to buy it at the spice section of my local tesco, but at the very least marijuana should be available as medicine.

Unreal. Everyone else looking at decriminalisation, and America decides it's time to march backwards (or knuckle-drag backwards).
 

borderlinegenius

Active member
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
149
The US government began the war on drugs, and they will be the last ones to end it.

The only positive thing about the savagery that passes for law enforcement in DEAland is that it demonstrates to the rest of the world that such policies are doomed to fail and designed not to succeed, but to spread fear, turn a buck and trample on civil rights.

It's interesting to contrast this move with the Federal government's decision to lower the amount of damages they are seeking from the tobacco industry, which has miraculously been decreased from $130billion to $10billion, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the tobacco industry have some great friends in government who are always happy to take donations.

Nothing whatseover. Glad we cleared that up. And we all know that tobacco isn't really a drug. I mean - it never killed anyone!
 

fish08

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2004
Messages
29
Bill Hicks said:
The war on drugs to me is absolutely phoney; it's so obviously phoney, ok? It's a war against our civil rights, that's all it is. They're using it to make us afraid to go out at night, afraid of each other, so that we lock ourselves in our homes and they get suspending our rights one by one.
 

Neutral

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
42
Whatever about this particular decision, or even the wider debate, it’s not fair to say this is a medicinal product being discussed. It’s a recreational product that some like to justify as medicinal.

A pharmaceutical company could seek a license to synthetically produce and market THC, the active ingredient of it, if it in fact was a better medical product than those currently available. This would occur without the negative aspects of smoking.
 

borderlinegenius

Active member
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
149
Neutral said:
Whatever about this particular decision, or even the wider debate, it’s not fair to say this is a medicinal product being discussed. It’s a recreational product that some like to justify as medicinal.
In this case, the states allowed medical use if a doctor perscribed the drug for medical use.

Marijuana has many indisputable medical benefits.

Neutral said:
A pharmaceutical company could seek a license to synthetically produce and market THC, the active ingredient of it, if it in fact was a better medical product than those currently available. This would occur without the negative aspects of smoking.
First of all, there is such a product on the market currently. It's called Marinol and many of its users have testified to its unsatisfactory effects. It is a high concentration of THC, without the other ingredients in cannabis, and causes several unpleasant side-effects. Its price has also sky-rocketed since its development.

Secondly, cannabis does not need to be smoked, and there is a famous granny in Britain who eats it with her food to treat several diseases. When eaten, cannabis is safer than sugar.
 

flakie

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
46
Website
www.irishanimals.ie
Neutral said:
Whatever about this particular decision, or even the wider debate, it’s not fair to say this is a medicinal product being discussed. It’s a recreational product that some like to justify as medicinal.
That means nothing.

Would the discussion be more valid if it concerned MDMA instead, which began life as a prescription drug?
 

Wednesday

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
354
Website
ceadaoin.blogspot.com
I haven't read the full decision but from the excerpts it sounds to me as though the majority opinion had as much to do with federal vs. state power as with marijuana use, per se.

It's interesting because traditionally in America the federal power at issue (to regulate interstate commerce) has been broadly interpreted to benefit left wing causes, while the right wing has traditionally argued for a very narrow and restrictive interpretation of that power.

This can actually be seen, to a degree, in the way the justices split: two of the dissenters (Rehnquist and Thomas) are firmly on the court's right wing while all of those who would typically be seen as "liberals" joined the majority decision.
 

stringjack

1
Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
3,887
Wednesday said:
I haven't read the full decision but from the excerpts it sounds to me as though the majority opinion had as much to do with federal vs. state power as with marijuana use, per se.
On that issue, see here.
 

mbari hogun

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
54
BLG, you filthy hippie, stop posting your High Times propaganda. Stick to legal recreational drugs, like Oxycontin.
 

emissions

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
30
Definitely not a good thing. The US are making a big mistake. I lived with a marijuana user and could see the many negative effects it was having on the his life. Always forgetting things, broke a leg - due to loss of balance, couldn't give a damn about general upkeep of living quarters, was clear to see motivation went out the window. Just some observations.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top